In a recent decision, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, struck down a New York law banning face coverings for federal agents and a requirement to wear visible identification.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked portions of New York’s law restricting how federal immigration officers conduct enforcement operations while allowing another key provision to remain in effect. In an August 3 preliminary injunction, US District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino ruled that New York may not enforce provisions prohibiting federal immigration officers from wearing face coverings or requiring them to display identifying information during enforcement actions.
The court concluded that the federal government is likely to succeed on its argument that those provisions are preempted because they interfere with the federal government’s authority to direct the operations of its officers. However, the judge declined to block New York’s prohibition on state and local governments entering into new 287(g) agreements under the Immigration and Nationality Act, finding the federal government had not shown it was likely to prevail on that claim at this stage of the litigation.
The decision is especially noteworthy for Maryland, where the General Assembly enacted similar policies during the 2026 legislative session. Maryland’s law likewise restricts federal immigration officers from wearing face coverings during most enforcement activities and requires visible identification, with limited exceptions. A separate Maryland law also prohibits local law enforcement agencies and detention facilities from entering into or renewing 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Importantly, the federal court’s ruling addresses only the application of these requirements to federal immigration officers. Maryland’s face covering and identification requirements remain fully in effect for state, county, and local law enforcement officers, including county police departments and sheriff’s offices, which continue to be subject to the State’s requirements governing officer identification during law enforcement activities.
The New York ruling, in conjunction with a prior decision in California, provides an early indicator of federal court decisions evaluating these types of state immigration measures. The injunction raises questions about whether Maryland’s face covering and identification requirements for federal immigration officers could face similar preemption challenges if litigated. At the same time, the court’s decision to leave New York’s 287(g) restrictions in place represents an early legal victory for states seeking to limit local participation in the federal program. As litigation over state immigration laws continues, Maryland counties will be watching closely to see whether similar challenges emerge and how federal courts continue to define the line between state authority and federal immigration enforcement.
Read full decision in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF NEW YORK, KATHY HOCHUL, and LETITIA JAMES